US Politics: The Killing Hoax

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Ok, so it's not a moral imperative or anything, it's a political tactic?  Good to clarify.  You are using the Biden accusations to try and move Biden to the left.  You're right, it's not childish, but it's politically stupid.  It can't help.  I'm not sure it hurts much either, but it definitely doesn't do anything more than make you feel better about yourself.

Not sure why it has to be an either or.  I think it's ethically bad to dismiss the Reade allegations on the grounds that's it's "our guy", which is how this has been coming across.  At the same time, yeah, we aren't even at the convention yet, this has been the most chaotic, incomplete, and abnormal primary I can remember, the idea that we're all supposed to just fall in line and ignore this seems a little wild.  I'm not just going to shut up because you think it's stupid or pointless to talk about this. 

Oh, and you may want to go back and read all the Wellstone stuff in this thread, you aren't making any sense.

 

[Lollygag]

If I'm a Republican, I'm going to make sure allegations of this sort, true or not, come out for the Dem nominee who ever he is. It'd be more challenging if it had been a woman as nominee, but they'd come up with something there, too.

They need to muddy the water with Trump's allegations (60+ last I heard and then there's the tape) and women are leaving the GOP in droves. You're not getting a male nominee without allegations. Period.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-allegedly-assaulted-dozens-more-women-new-book-claims

Quote

President Trump has been accused of 43 new allegations of alleged inappropriate behavior with women, including 26 instances of unwanted sexual contact in the new book All the President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator by journalists Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy. In the run-up to the 2016 election, Trump faced dozens of similar accusations, including attempted rape, groping, and forcible kisses.

 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

It’s really adorable this is what you think is reasonable for you and unreasonable for others and how different those standards are.

Is this kindergarten trash talk?  

4 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Do you have a problem with the DNC and downticket Democrats taking some time to listen to sexual assault victims to find ways to respond to allegations that do not alienate those party members?

No.  As I've said many times in this thread, I think the media should be taking Reade more seriously.  You got all self-righteous about a damn Wellstone comment and I obliged to fight because I'm bored too.  Don't act like you're better than me.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Is this kindergarten trash talk?  

No.  As I've said many times in this thread, I think the media should be taking Reade more seriously.  You got all self-righteous about a damn Wellstone comment and I obliged to fight because I'm bored too.  Don't act like you're better than me.

If you are so insecure that me politely asking your opinion on what I *was* talking about after pages of you arguing against your own misinterpretation of what I was talking about that you think I’m acting like I’m better than you, I’m bummed for you and I hope for better for you. Truly. 
 

But you are in here insulting people and being unpleasant on purpose and if people refusing to do that themselves makes you feel talked down to, maybe you wouldn’t feel like people are acting like they are better than you if you would just, you know, be a nice person.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fury Resurrected said:

If you are so insecure that me politely asking your opinion on what I *was* talking about after pages of you arguing against your own misinterpretation of what I was talking about that you think I’m acting like I’m better than you, I’m bummed for you and I hope for better for you. Truly. 

I hope one day you learn to write succinct sentences.  Truly.  As for "insulting people," I responded to your posts.  You're right, I started it, but my original response was disbelief at a certain type of admiration of Paul Wellstone.  I did not know it would generate this type of reaction.  If that's all it is, I'm sorry.  Wellstone is the bees knees of Midwest Senators.  You're the one making this dramatic and personal.  And keep on saying insecure so much I suspect it's projection.

[Kalbear]

Seven. More. Months. 

[Fury Resurrected]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I hope one day you learn to write succinct sentences.  Truly.  As for "insulting people," I responded to your posts.  You're right, I started it, but my original response was disbelief at a certain type of admiration of Paul Wellstone.  I did not know it would generate this type of reaction.  If that's all it is, I'm sorry.  Wellstone is the bees knees of Midwest Senators.  You're the one making this dramatic and personal.  And keep on saying insecure so much I suspect it's projection.

You should read your posts, they’re full of insults and unkindness that was never once directed back at you. You had an honest misunderstanding of my post and doubled down, it happens. We are all going through tough and uncertain times right now and a little extra kindness should be in order. But taking your boredom out on others with pettiness and insults isn’t cool and again, my suggestion is just to chill out and be nicer.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

You should read your posts, they’re full of insults and unkindness that was never once directed back at you.

Cite it.  When did I insult you, directly?  Ok, I did call you naive about Paul Wellstone.  That I stand by, but, I don't think that's why you so mad.  In terms of me being "full of insults" please give me quotes, and I'll give you analogous ones insulting and "unkind" things you've said about me.  Way to be mature about it and finish this.  Alright this is stupid.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, felice said:

un a ranked choice postal vote open to all registered Democrats across the country

How you gonna do that without the post office?

P.S. You should probably save your energy instead of attempting to have a reasonable, rational disagreement or discussion with somebody who  bynow, over the weekend likely has imbibed a very great deal of something or other, who is going stir crazy living alone in a small apartment, and who, maybe, is feeling a lot like the rest of us are feeling now, whether or not we have imbibed, or are not living alone.

And honestly, despite everything and where my heart is with #MeToo, etc., right now it feels to me that we should be far more concerned by the shutting down of the postal service in terms of the election than over who groped or did not grope somebody 40 years ago.  Not that I don't care about these issues, far from that, but I really do care that we actually have an election.  Which They are doing everything to prevent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/opinion/kirsten-gillibrand-usps-coronavirus.html?

Quote

Where’s the Nearest Bank and Ballot Box? Try the Post Office
The Postal Service should be allowed to deliver low-cost financial services to poor and rural communities. And vote-by-mail should be universal. By Kirsten Gillibrand

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

the idea that we're all supposed to just fall in line and ignore this seems a little wild.  I'm not just going to shut up because you think it's stupid or pointless to talk about this.

The "idea" is having a presumptive nominee.  Literally everyone else has dropped out.  Any change at this point will be as feckless as Humphrey 68.  So you can whine all you want, but it is certainly stupid and probably pointless.

[felice]

50 minutes ago, Zorral said:

How you gonna do that without the post office?

Yeah, that's an issue

[ants]

I consider myself to be a person who looks at things logically, and to try and remove emotion from things.  Frankly, I think anyone who has a view on the Reade/Biden accusations is simply letting their own biases show through.  Unless a poster knows one or both parties closely, how else to interpret anyone giving more weight to one or the other?  And the reality is that they may both be telling the truth, as they remember it.  Plenty of perpetrators rebuild their memory so that they are a good person and it didn't happen like that.  Plenty of victims' memories of an event worsen over time.  First hand witness accounts of incidents are untrustworthy minutes after an event, let alone 20 years.  Both parties could have taken a grey incident and changed it in their mind. And of course, one could be lying.  

But as I said above, without more evidence, I think people believing one or the other is just showing our own biases, or desires.  It is natural for humans to want to form an opinion.  The reality here is though that the evidence is by its nature inconclusive, and falls effectively into the opposing statements of two individuals.  We shouldn't disbelieve Reade.  We shouldn't disbelieve Biden.  That many men have been assholes, sexual offenders and rapists cannot tar every individual.  That there is the potential to be politically motivated should not tar every accuser.  In a balanced and fair world, we have to accept that in cases where there is no corrobrating evidence, no further victims coming forward, that we will have situations with no clearly defined good and bad persons.  And that we will have to live with the ambiguity and possibility that the people we're talking about may have done something evil.  That's not a nice world, to be so grey.  But it is the world we live in, unless we say we're going to ignore victims, or assume that any accuser is definitely true until the accused is proven innocent.  I don't like either of those worlds, personally.  

I asked earlier for what the DNC was meant to be doing?  The media is currently investigating.  They have (to date) found little corroborating evidence, which is of course perfectly typical in these cases. Even if the DNC did an investigation, they have no power to do anything, compel witnesses, or penalise Biden if they found against him.  Again, is anyone from the DNC attacking Reade?    

I will say this.  Arguments that Reade is credible or not, or her actions do or do not reflect those of a victim, leave a bad taste in my mouth.  It presupposes that there is a *correct* way for a victim to behave.  If an accusation such as this goes to a formal investigation, and potentially trial, then the credibility can be called into play.  As keyboard commentators, it is pretty silly to be trying to read motivation into a person we know so little about, especially when so often that motivation chosen is one that fits our own biases.  

I also think those saying Biden should react this way or not also leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  He has denied the allegations.  He hasn't attacked Reade.  I think asking for anything more puts a weight on the person accused which is unfair and opens the allegation process up to abuse.  

I do think the below post by Er Repetitious from earlier in the month (on a different topic, ice-cream gate) does still hold though:

On 4/22/2020 at 8:20 AM, Ser Reptitious said:

You know what Republicans (especially Mitch McConnell) figured out that Democrats haven’t? That if (outwardly, at least) you stick together, you can make any attack by the other side look like it’s merely partisan. All of Trump’s and the Republicans’ outrageous conduct, up to and including the impeachment process, are a perfect example of that. 

But as soon a few (or more than a few) members of your own side attack you, the average low-information voter will start thinking “hmm, I guess there must be something to it beyond partisan politics. Even members of their own party acknowledge that it was wrong”. 

That’s why Republicans were so furious with Romney. But since he was the only one, it didn’t have the impact that it would have had if three or four more Republicans had openly joined him.

[Fury Resurrected]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Cite it.  When did I insult you, directly?  Ok, I did call you naive about Paul Wellstone.  That I stand by, but, I don't think that's why you so mad.  In terms of me being "full of insults" please give me quotes, and I'll give you analogous ones insulting and "unkind" things you've said about me.  Way to be mature about it and finish this.  Alright this is stupid.

When did you take on this whole edgelord persona? I realize I’ve been gone for a couple years and only came back during COVID to read some more international accounts, but I remember you being around before I left and don’t recall you being the type of guy to try and be rude to people over a disagreement you’ve imagined. Almost every one of your posts to me and polishgenius have contained some unnecessary insult about the person of how they’ve typed. That you somehow don’t notice yourself doing that is weird and the change is odd.

 

And I’m not mad, I’m just really shocked. This board was a very important community for me for over a decade of my life and even through disagreements I regarded it to be full of mostly well meaning supportive people, some of whom I’m very close to. And I made a long post, which you cherry picked to argue with- about how I feel the party and a lot of this thread has lost sight of assault and rape victims in its response to these allegations. I included that I myself am a victim of both rape and sexual assault and that this election cycle is really triggering and hard to deal with for me personally because of that and I don’t know how to balance that.

I expected people might disagree with it or have personal experiences that are counter to mine. I didn’t expect that anyone would be telling me I was saying something almost opposite of what I wrote and pepper all their responses with jabs. It takes a lot to hash out personal tragedy that is still a daily stumbling block. I tried to do so to bring some perspective and understanding that most of the participants on this thread are fortunate enough not to have. My hope was there would be some discussion about how the party *could* respond better. Instead I get my points twisted, my very raw and personal reasons for that perspective ignored completely, and get to work around your tons of rude comments- all because you think it’s dumb that you think I admire Paul Wellstone? That’s why I’m “you so mad” (which, I’m not mad, I’m just shocked that anyone would read what you read and behave how you have). If that is difficult for you to understand or have any empathy for, I guess that’s a valid position. But these discussions would have a lot more than the 4 or 5 usual suspects in an echo chamber the politics thread have been reduced to if this wasn’t how shit goes down.

[karaddin]

3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

As already noted, the alternatives to a Kavanaugh type are almost infinite. The alternative to Biden is Donald Trump. The possibility of a Presidential candidate who doesn’t have a potentially damning sexual history at this point is zero, as is the possibility of a candidate who will represent hope for sexual assault victims.

The possibility of helping all kinds of other types of victims is still there, though. That’s the call everyone has to make for themselves, though it seems a pretty clear cut one to me. 

Using this particular post as a jumping board rather than directing this specifically at you - I would suggest that it's possible to acknowledge that this choice (Trump vs Biden) is the reality that we have to deal with in a way that isn't dismissive of this accusation in particular, or of the feelings of survivors of sexual assault generally.

The word "credibility" in particular really is one that I agree with ants on, whether you're intending to do this or not it comes across like you're appointing yourself as equipped to render a verdict on whether it happened or not. You aren't, you can't, and you probably shouldn't be trying to. Especially not if you understand the pressures that oppose reporting sexual assault and the harm that the victim receives from publicly reporting one. 

And for the love of fucking god show some compassion to people that show their vulnerability on this issue even if you disagree with their conclusions.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, ants said:

I consider myself to be a person who looks at things logically, and to try and remove emotion from things.  Frankly, I think anyone who has a view on the Reade/Biden accusations is simply letting their own biases show through.  Unless a poster knows one or both parties closely, how else to interpret anyone giving more weight to one or the other?  And the reality is that they may both be telling the truth, as they remember it.  Plenty of perpetrators rebuild their memory so that they are a good person and it didn't happen like that.  Plenty of victims' memories of an event worsen over time.  First hand witness accounts of incidents are untrustworthy minutes after an event, let alone 20 years.  Both parties could have taken a grey incident and changed it in their mind. And of course, one could be lying.  

But as I said above, without more evidence, I think people believing one or the other is just showing our own biases, or desires.  It is natural for humans to want to form an opinion.  The reality here is though that the evidence is by its nature inconclusive, and falls effectively into the opposing statements of two individuals.  We shouldn't disbelieve Reade.  We shouldn't disbelieve Biden.  That many men have been assholes, sexual offenders and rapists cannot tar every individual.  That there is the potential to be politically motivated should not tar every accuser.  In a balanced and fair world, we have to accept that in cases where there is no corrobrating evidence, no further victims coming forward, that we will have situations with no clearly defined good and bad persons.  And that we will have to live with the ambiguity and possibility that the people we're talking about may have done something evil.  That's not a nice world, to be so grey.  But it is the world we live in, unless we say we're going to ignore victims, or assume that any accuser is definitely true until the accused is proven innocent.  I don't like either of those worlds, personally.  

I asked earlier for what the DNC was meant to be doing?  The media is currently investigating.  They have (to date) found little corroborating evidence, which is of course perfectly typical in these cases. Even if the DNC did an investigation, they have no power to do anything, compel witnesses, or penalise Biden if they found against him.  Again, is anyone from the DNC attacking Reade?    

I will say this.  Arguments that Reade is credible or not, or her actions do or do not reflect those of a victim, leave a bad taste in my mouth.  It presupposes that there is a *correct* way for a victim to behave.  If an accusation such as this goes to a formal investigation, and potentially trial, then the credibility can be called into play.  As keyboard commentators, it is pretty silly to be trying to read motivation into a person we know so little about, especially when so often that motivation chosen is one that fits our own biases.  

I also think those saying Biden should react this way or not also leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  He has denied the allegations.  He hasn't attacked Reade.  I think asking for anything more puts a weight on the person accused which is unfair and opens the allegation process up to abuse.  

I do think the below post by Er Repetitious from earlier in the month (on a different topic, ice-cream gate) does still hold though:

I'm comfortable disbelieving Biden, he's repeatedly lied, plagiarized, and shamelessly exaggerated stuff that is easily refuted for his entire career.  He certainly hasn't been honest about his past.

And that stuff about sticking together because Republicans do is absurd.  It's basically advocating hypocrisy, nihilism, and winning at all costs over having any kind of ethical framework.

If in the future the Dems start doing this more than they already do (it's not like Sanders or Warren have called for any investigation into Reade's claims), and over a long enough period of time, they will become indistinguishable from the GOP.  The differences will be aesthetic only, because there will be no platforms and nothing will mean anything.

Dem president decides to continue endless wars, drone strikes, sanctions, overlooking human rights concerns for economic ones?  Can't criticize them, have to look unified.  Dem president doesn't make a priority of changing the way we are currently handling immigration?  Oh well, maybe next time, can't speak out against Dear Leader.  Dem president caught sexually assaulting someone?  Just toe the line for the good of the country. 

 

 

[Bael's Bastard]

However wrong, when an accusation is made public, people are going to form opinions based on the information they have available to them.

An accusation is inherently intended to influence people into forming a negative opinion of the accused. It's absurd to suggest that everyone should automatically form a negative opinion based on an accusation regardless of the information available.

I agree that this lady shouldn't be attacked. For the most part, I don't think attacks against her are the norm among Democratic voters. There are no campaigns to undermine or sweep her under the rug. It's out there.

The Biden campaign has denied it, people from his team at the time have denied the complaints occurred, and I'm not sure what some expect prior to a further investigation.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Using this particular post as a jumping board rather than directing this specifically at you - I would suggest that it's possible to acknowledge that this choice (Trump vs Biden) is the reality that we have to deal with in a way that isn't dismissive of this accusation in particular, or of the feelings of survivors of sexual assault generally.

The word "credibility" in particular really is one that I agree with ants on, whether you're intending to do this or not it comes across like you're appointing yourself as equipped to render a verdict on whether it happened or not. You aren't, you can't, and you probably shouldn't be trying to. Especially not if you understand the pressures that oppose reporting sexual assault and the harm that the victim receives from publicly reporting one. 

And for the love of fucking god show some compassion to people that show their vulnerability on this issue even if you disagree with their conclusions.

What?

I never used the word ‘credibility’, discussed whether or not it happened...if there is any inference in my post, it is certainly assuming guilt....or any of the rest of it. Did you quote the wrong post here?

[karaddin]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

What?

I never used the word ‘credibility’, discussed whether or not it happened...if there is any inference in my post, it is certainly assuming guilt....or any of the rest of it. Did you quote the wrong post here?

Please read the start of my post "Using this particular post as a jumping board rather than directing this specifically at you". Your comment was a good lead in to what I wanted to say, I wasn't directing it at you.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The Biden campaign has denied it, people from his team at the time have denied the complaints occurred, and I'm not sure what some expect prior to a further investigation.

How about reaching out to victims of similar crimes? How about some policies that would protect those people? How about a private, professionally led, restorative justice session between Biden and Reade (if she would be willing)? There’s a lot they could be doing, but as I said, that would require acknowledging and listening to survivors, and that’s something this society only grants lip service to.

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

I did not know it would generate this type of reaction.  If that's all it is, I'm sorry.  Wellstone is the bees knees of Midwest Senators.  You're the one making this dramatic and personal. 

 

You're responding to her post about her feelings that the establishment not listening to women by not just dismissing her position- literally reframing it to what you wanted it to be so you could better do that- but doing so in the most stereotypically old-school sexist 'there there dear I don't understand why you're so emotional about this we'll talk when you're not mad' manner and you're wondering why she's upset with you? Are you doing a bit here?

Even if, like Ants and Bael's Bastard, you don't think there's any more the DNC could be doing right now until and if more comes to light, there was absolutely no reason to come at it so sneeringly, as if you think the problem isn't whether it's true or not but that it's contempible even to think about questioning those of you happy with Biden as the democratic nominee.